the candidates has to own the message of that ad. if in fact you're going to have a large scale outside group you continue know how it got funded throwing attack ads up how does a voter distinguish what could be accurate or not. what is the person saying there should not be a millionaire tax or should be. who is the special interest dominating that message point coming out and how does the voter get through it?

i think one the most amazing thicks happening in the country when you look at the president number heys doing well. what's fascinated about the amount of money being spent by the cross roads and the entity for some reason the message is not coming through it's not compel fpg you look at the swing states that we were going to be remarkably close are going to trend toward tbhawm a way that somebody thinks to seem unless the debate set the presidential election. it's clear the spt heading toward a environment he has a advantage. romney is going to be exceptional. >> tune in. >> fiewn in and watch. let watch. >> i'm excited. >> talk about in next week in class. >> would you taunt the cross road different and you engage in more localized races congressional and senate how you choose your priorities since so you have a broader scope.

>> yeah. that's a good question. we're focused on the presidential election and goal to beat president obama and elect a new president. we are heavily invested in the senate and house race. thing a way about the -- [inaudible] i don't think priority u.s.a. for example -- restore future exclusively dedicated. we're focused on all of the senate races or where you're going do see a lot more of the advertising early your on in the senate races, the bigger the office, the more people pay attention. the we'll be engaged in a number of house races probably a little bit later as we get closer. >> yeah. that's the other thing. the cross roads place outside role in the senate races and don't think that the two are not entwined. i'm not suggesting anything knee fair use. let's say there was president issue advertising. the republican side, the crossroads and other outspending

on the senate roadways and house races. and those all have an impact. it's the environment how do people feel when there's million of dollar of ad spending in state of montana, for example within out senate race, it affects the house race and other races below it. and so that's one of the -- i don't know it's inintended consequence. it's a consequence of sup pack spending like this. but when the campaign, and i wok for more more campaign than i do independent expenditure, the when we deal with campaigns what we talk about is when is crossroads going to come up? when is cross roads going to be there? because we're not half of our planning and discussion is about what the outside entities are going do and what mike said which is right we used to plan on the other side of the campaign. we used to have okay, we're

going to do there is going to do. now we're all planning far sort of multilevel. which makes our job more -- [inaudible] >> and there are a number of them today. and there are more and more there are super packs on the left that have -- there are multiple super pacs on both sides. >> yeah. >> i think -- [inaudible] >> and thing the biggest outside spender in house races is the democratic . >> house majority. >> i believe today but . >> is is super pac. >> yeah. you said you haven't started. it's not largely -- [inaudible] >> so, i mean, i don't think that will be at the end of the day. and the senate race, for sure, you guys have been the monster flier. >> the other thing i think is important for everybody to realize too there are specific rules that everybody has to abide by if you're involved in a super pac or independent expenditure and everybody takes the rules seriously. it is interesting to watch. it is a big chess board now.

there's more players involved in this. having to live by the rules that make the independent expenditures truly independent is something important for everything to remember. all sides are trying to look at this. i remember after the 2004 election i appeared on the panel with something who was a field organizer one of the outside democratic group and they will meanted that it was done bit rnc on the republican side and the outside groups of the democrat side. they could not communicate with the campaign. and they were not able to do that in their mind the campaign wasn't doing the right thing because they outsourced field operation. it was a big difference. everybody follows the rules well. anybody have any questions or students? you'll get huge merits if you don't ask. >> you have to come down to the microphone. >> go to the microphone. >> please keep to the questions as con sis as you can so everybody can get a chance. >> no user canning.

maggie hasn't done it yet. knob else. >> a question i had this is the united states allow corporation to fund a lot of these political campaigns. >> corporation are people. didn't you hear? >> romney said it, the supreme court said it. >> my particular question deals primarily i'm interested in international relation and international corporation or maybe stationed in the united states. has there been international corporation 0 to scare have funded the particular super pacs and has there been pronation -- like, certain countries have been, you know, a particular candidate like say a separate nation in the international realm have a particular interest for a particular candidate to be elected. >> [inaudible] >> the cayman islands. [laughter] >> two part, first i don't know the corporation are going to be super pacs to agree [inaudible] i think if you were to look at the super pac there's some money going in to them. i don't know it's as much as you

suggest. i don't know citizens unitedded the degree of impact. i would recommend a -- [inaudible] who wrote a piece on the super pac actually the impact of citizens united in "the new york times" mag seen. it's a good thing. the second thing is we don't take money from foreign entities. st plainly stated in the literature. >> yep. yeah. no money from foreign nationals. >> yes question? >> yes. i had a quick question. we were talking about how it changed the field a little bit and how it cooperated the political fields but at the same time it create jobs for you guys. talk about that, you know, . >> a little more honest about that. how do you feel about would you be in favor of getting rid of this super pac thing and if so what would you favor in response to it? what would take the place? >> the amazing part about campaign finance reform. it's evolving.

let's assume a new set of laws is passed. as quickly as they are passed, election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. it's constantly evolve issue. would i support moving the money back to the candidates. absolutely. i think there has to be a mechanism i worked for two millionaire politicians. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank and file. to be able to raise larger amounts. but i believe putting the money back in the candidate account create more accountability and much more integrity driven process to frame an election. me personally yes. and, you know, does my firm make money off the kinds of campaign. absolutely. from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we went back to that model. >> can i answer? >> i don't know that i agree with the assumption of the question. if you look at what -- [inaudible] look at what super pac actually do and what the advertising does, everyone in here age lot

of people in the political times remember the question in political times 101 should the elected representative do what he believes is right or what the constituent is right? everyone remember that question? and you could answer the question one way or the other. the important way to take away is there is a attention between the elected representative wants to do. nobody wants to run for office so they can, you know, cast a lever for what the constituents want to do. you want to be a candidate because you believe in something. you believe in cutting taxes or increase social parties. whatever you want to do. nobody wants to pull the lever for the constituents. all the super pac can do is identify places where the elected representative has gone out too far from the constituency and then educate the elect rate about how the representative sideways with the will with the public opinion of the people. you take that ad that cross

roads ran. we were running it in the states talking about how the president passed this stimulus program. the stimulus thing was wildly unpopular and the ads that the super pac can do is hold the president or another elected official to account for what they can. it can't change public opinion. we can identify places where an elected representative is sideways with the constituent and let people know about it. i don't know that i agree with it the premises of the question it's necessarily bad. i think it brings a to light a lot of things people wouldn't otherwise know. >> i think in the credibility product. i-- [inaudible] it would allow challengers and underfunded candidates if you were to just waive a wand to get rid of limits and allow teem contribute as much as they want to the candidates as long as it's disclosed the press and opponent could decide whether or not that is having undue influence on the elected

official. >> the other thing is the way candidates raise money. they raise money through traditional pac. the union pacs that exist from washington, d.c., and give check to the candidates mostly to incumbent. we looked at traditional tax giving if 2010. democrats held ladies and gentlemen majority and traditional tax which are mostly corporate tax gave to democratsed at proportion of 57%. 43% to the republicans. mostly corporate tax giving to democrats not republicans. i don't care that the democrats or republicans they care they are incumbent. they are working incum bentd. it seems like the game is tilted for anybody who wants to crack in to process is. it's difficult. super pacs are not like incumbent. they can come in and hold the office holder to account for vote they may have taken. a vote on obamacare or the

stimulus. the incumbent like that. the traditional pac give the money to the incumbent. >> it's still preverse. i would rather have the opponent pointing out the things than the super pac. i would rather the two sides of a campaign be badly -- than some other enfip there are many solutions. that's one solution the disclosure certainly is one thing. so, i mean, there are multiple solutions. but to me it is frustrating that the candidates voice has been muted. the presidential is a different ball game in terms of money and everything spend. and the impact of free media on it. so but on the senate race and the house race, we just want these two men two ladies man and lady to talk to one another and fight it out between each other. and i think we probably would get a little more vision out of them and a little more contrast.

it would be here is what i think and she makes. >> that's a good point about the presidential race. i think the advertising actually matters less in the presidential race people are watching the presidential race. when you get to the u.s. senate race in places like new jersey it's difficult for either candidate to have advertising. they make calculated decision about how much it costs in the new york media market in terms where they can spend their advertising dollars. and it is -- does become harder for candidates to get their voices heard without large dollars for advertising. on the presidential race you have media coverage every day. we don't see that in our state. even the governor's race until the end. you don't see kind of -- day-to-day following. >> we have a lot of sort of super pac expenditure in fact new jersey not on television because it's so not affordable in the state to be on new york or philly. there's a ton of field programs, mail programs, phone programs and digital programs

predominantly field. you can change outcomes and i think that happened it was evidenced by the race between congressman pascrell and he won on the by basis of a remarkable field operation by a variety of entities which changed the dynamic of the situation of the race. and that wasn't the intention of the field program. it had a huge impact inspect in new jersey i think the media market the cost are prohibitive that other mechanisms are being used. let's go to the mike. we have a line developing. >> my question is do you believe that corporation should be counted as people or not? >> i'm going to let them start. [laughter] >> hi. i think it's more a legal question. i don't know that i have -- there are legal reasons why they count corporation as people in court. it's beyond my expertise. >> we're living under the same

rules at the supreme court passed. >> 47% of the people aren't relevant to one candidate. [laughter] all right there. if you count corporation as people maybe you can add in a couple of points back if you did that way. >> since you brought up the 47%. i do because i have heard governor romney say this it's a guy on the 47% a guy who gives, you know, $4 million plus to charity last year. >> listen to me. >> gives millions of dollars. it's crazy to say they doesn't care woo . >> mike, we didn't say it. romney said it. i hear what you're saying. >> but the -- [inaudible] that quote is two things and what it says to the public. what is says is the romney you see an stage in a debate or national convention or tv ad is saying one thing. but the romney behind closed doors when he thinks is there is no press in the room is saying different. >> i don't know about that. it depends on the date. sometimes he says one thing one day and one thing another.

it's public and private. the 47 percent of the important point proves your point, mike, which is there hasn't been priorities did an ad on the 47% thing. but you have seen -- but small media this terms of dollar spent. the amount of voters nationwide who know about because of the media coverage in a presidential race it's remarkable. there were, i think begin pee yak did a lot of surveys that tested whether or not people heard about the 47 percent in the swing state. and the numbers were high. and so, i mean, that's the thing. and do think it was em blaymatic people built in on the feelings. romney isn't like me. he doesn't get me or the middle class. and that one comment capsulated it all. >> and -- he was talking from like a political strategies. and not the presidential candidate. >> he wasn't. that was lame excuse.

but he wasn't. if he said what we all say is 47% of the people are not voting for me. 47% of the people are not voting for barack obama. that's not what he said. he went much further than that and the sort of simple dismissing of look, there's 45% of one side and 45 on the other. we fighting over 10%. we have all said that. that's not what he said. the people who don't pay taxes they are irrelevant. and . >> he didn't say that either. you're taking two liberties on that. >> why don't we take the next question, if we can. thank you very much. >> in the interest of full disclosure i'm a grad student a member of one of the unions. i thought i should say that. >> i do that all the time. >> stand proud. everyone deserves the health care. >> absolutely. i want to make it clear. my question is . >> [inaudible] >> toward the republican strategies because i'm surrounded by people who kind of have the same aid ideological

bent as me. i adopt understand the recent -- i have been following the rented voter id laws you're seeing there's a linkage with the super pac because you're seeing people like the coke brothers funding the super pac but the initiatives to get the voter id laws passed. so my question is kind of twofold, is this blatant , i mean, what republican leaders are say attempt at voter disenfranchisement an explicit strategy of the republican that is emerging something we're going to see in future elections? and just to challenge you, how do you justify it? >> i would -- i'll take that. i'll take the first crack at it. i don't know anybody has said that the republican voters . >> i am. >> they're saying they do not want certain people to vote. >> they're saying this. >> and i don't understand how you can justify that. >> i don't know that's what they're saying.

>> okay. to answer your question. i'll give my response. >> nybble. >> here's what happened. i have seen firsthand voter fraud. it is probably not as ram pant as a lot of people would you believe. just like the threat on republicans trying to disenfranchise is what you see. what you have is is a tug between both sides and both sides think of the other side as doing something wrong. i have witnessed it. i have watched people casting illegal votes and physically tried to stop it it. it doesn't mean that every democrat was -- if grow pretended it's not happening you're kidding yourself and so you a push on the ore side to try to stop people from cheating. you argue whether that goes state of or that's not the right remedy. it is a difficult tug between both sides in terms of how do you stop it? >> look, i love mike. that is crazy if you want to do it. stop it. but to decide the only way you can win an election is

disfranchise people's right to vote. that's embarrassing and the country is going to e reelect barack obama. there a series of tact ises that are outrageous and against the value of the country. the only way to win is disfranchise i think it's a sad thing. >> that's is not the -- we don't have that here. i'm not as familiar as other states. that's not the intent. [inaudible] >> the intent -- >> the kind of republican. >> the intent is to stop multiple people from voting. stop dead people from voting. >> it's fraud. >> when you go out there. >> [inaudible conversations] >> and city where you're from, you can comment on it or not. in the city of philadelphia everything is run by the city and the jdge of election end up becoming the democratic committee people and what used to be the case that polling locations were literally in people's garages you had no accountability. you had one party control and you had zero accountability and nobody watching the election. you can complain that somebody

is trying and steering too much in the swerve what you have is no accountability in one party rule in number of places in the country and you can say republicans are all for doing this. there's a lot wrong happening on both sides. what you're saying is not crazy easy. to have the accountability. >> i agree it's not easy. just because it's hard -- [inaudible] >> look both sides are right. there is some fraud. >> my side is more right. [laughter] >> there's certainly is fraud and tactics they're choosing seems to be important. the motion of a modified poll tax which is what some of this is not the right way to go. and in fact pennsylvania law, i believe was stopped -- there was a stay on it today in pennsylvania. so it's the wrong tactic i hope they change their ways. frankly, none of us think voter suppression is the way to go. it's not wait to win election. i'm positive that jonathan doesn't spend time thinking how we can suppress voters. and we don't.

but that solution, the solution of voter id is wrong. >> sir? >> i'd like to thank for coming here. before i ask my question i'd like to redo a quote on the issue. he said in the aftermass we have seen undress -- often by groups that won't disclose the donor. my question is how important is anonymity? because it seems to me like if your argument is money is free speech, then we should hold people accountable for what they say. if the ceo of pepsi were to give million dollars to romney tomorrow, i wouldn't buy pepsi for the rest of the year. how are we going to hold them accountable? >> just a year? [laughter] he's not committed. >> so you to work it. >> there are sodas i cannot go without. >> other pepsi products might be okay. >> not in new york city not if

they are large. >> it has to be 16 ounces. can't be anymore than that. >> what i'm saying how can we hobble them accountable when we don't know what they're saying. >> i'll take a jab at it. long story short there a groups that are organized under the tack law. the super pac committee which they call them are all those report to the fcc and they report monthly or quarterly. there are also non-profit organizations whole host of them that are organized under different part of the tax code. they are organized -- issued a have skate candidate sei organization there are private organizations that are require respect required to disclose the members. it's protected going back to the 1950s. it's been argued there's a whole logic. it's not done by the right or the left. it's done by all types of organization. there are a ton of them.

environment groups are organized the same way as some of the center right groups. they don't disclose their donors. what the irs issued if you a a political -- non-profit organization you are allowed to spend some of the resources on political activity. can't be a majority of what you do. it can be some of what you do. that's what is happening with the organization. they're following the laws that exist to governor non-profit groups. >> there's a investigation already by the new york state attorney general eric neederman to some of this and whether this kind of spending whether it's kosher, frankly. the kind of money that's being spent isn't right and property portions. but, i mean, john described it perfectly well. there is something remarking thabl republicans forever and every was about to disclose and now can't get them to disclose the past and the senate backs the republicans in the house at

all. so those are the kinds of things that are i think are sphrus rating. i think big picture. >> was that the first place looking for bipartisan over the last four years. >> yeah. that was going to be the -- [inaudible] >> one place president obama is going to reach across the aisle. that will be great. >> by the way, i think you answered your own question. of course. why woo do you do anything enormous. you don't want to be caught or someone to know what you're doing. there are a variety of reasons for that. but it takes away a remarkable amount of accountability in the system. if you don't know who is financing something you are watching and viewing. you have no sense where it's coming from. what the motives are. what is the special interest what is happening. >> you have a to be curious a lot of questions that come from the angle are the same people who advocate the most for campaign finance reform.

there are other groups trout they have live under different rules and abide by different rules in terms of how they communicate. >> one of the things going back. i believe that amount candidates can raise from individuals it's up a little bit. but back in the '70s people were able to give $2,000 to candidates. now they can give $24 00 to candidates. over a lifetime it has -- [inaudible] >> yeah. minor. >> next? >> with the element of the outside spending on the -- [inaudible] do you think we have seen the publicly finance campaigns? what reforms do you see might happen in the area of campaign finance? >> in new york city write live

-- [inaudible] >> on the presidential. with the check box. >> yeah. >> [inaudible conversations] >> we're done with that. i don't think senator mccain opted in for the finance system. one of the untold stories in the 2008 races i don't think it would change the outcome mccain was outspend. the decision for the obama campaign to go outside and mccain to stay inside was not a good decision in term what it meant ultimately at the end of the day. he was outsend spend. i don't think anybody is going to do it again. unless it changes dramatically. >> they have it on local. >> you had to take the public matching funds. i didn't in '09. >> in new jersey for governor we have matching funds. we don't have it on the legislative level. we have a couple of pilot programs on legislative level. you have to raise a certain amount. on the gubernatorial amount this

certain threshold $350 ,000 the state will match you two for one. you have a million dollars. so it actually makes, you know, a candidate if you can reach kind of a certain thresh hold of seriousness in term to demonstrate you can become viable very quick. you saw that in the gubernatorial primary in 2009 and the chris y christy general election. [inaudible] which is a lot more than most campaigns get in new jersey on a u.s. senate race. very rarely ever get that high. tbhaw actually gets to the point of being enough to get the message out. in this state with philadelphia and new york the first and foremost expensive market you need to hit in the neighborhood of $10 million to get the message out. in new jersey the public financing essentially gives candidates the ability to get to that threshold level. you can opt, senator opted out. basically seeing how to goes going forward. we don't have it on the

legislative level. >> a remarkable impact on campaign. the candidate -- i can't tell you how much time candidates spend fundraising. it is massive. frank cam back frat sabbatical in 2002. the reason why he retired because he had to raise $12 million when you look at the and for the year the year before in which the year he would be running he would spend 60% of the professional time fundraising. dinners, cocktail parties you name name it. he got to the point where he just he was so remarkably daunting to him in his mind and appropriate he worth do it. for candidate christy the gob national candidate it's terrific to have the public match the level of engagement where the candidate is with the voters.

you see them spending more time in the states. there's an ongoing race you can't fall behind. you have to do the same in dayton and jacksonville and you have to be there. it is constant poll between do i have enough money on tv versus going out and shaking hands with people and getting earned media coverage. >> next? thank you. >> hi. my question is for cross roads right wing. >> wow. >> don't know which receptive is thinking of -- [inaudible] >> you mention the foundation of the packs being specifically a response to all the union money in the left i'm curious if you still consider you guys at a disadvantage all this allegedly rampant union money coming in from the left. would you say the playing field has been leveled now that the money has trickled down to congressional races and do you think that will see in the

future any of the left packs coming in and funding more congregation nap and senate races? go you think we'll see some ads specifically targeted ads attacking people like todd akin or chris smith for the radical views. do you think it is on the left side specifically something that is resrve for the presidential election. >> i would leave them in separate categories going forward. >> did you hear about the allegation? >> we won't know what the has spent until after they file their reporting whenever they file it. i do know from the associated press a few months ago report that they spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 million in 2012. they spent $400 million or $4 50 million. i expect it's in that range. in terms what they sphwail spend after it's said and done. i don't think we'll know it. >> coke brothers $200. >> allison $100. you're letting guy off chief.

-- cheap. the coke brothers and one other guy. so i don't think it's going to be even. i think it will be clear to answer your second question, there is actually lot of activity on the left in terms of super pac in the senate race in the house races, terrorist a group called majority pack and senate majority pack and house majority pack. they are actively funding their own set of advertisement in all those places in certainly in the todd akin race in the missouri senate race, that's their probe they have to deal with. clare was looking like it was going to be a tough election and todd akin opened his mouth. there's plenty of activity on the left side in that race. and many other races. look, there's also activity in the sort of center, one of the races that got of us are against each other i work far guy in indiana named joe indiana is supposed to be a republican

state no way with a democrat can compete for the united states senate and a tea party guy richard murdoch came and beat the great dick the great senator for so long and beat him in a primary. and for the last two months, that race has been tied. cross roads came in with a huge buy but the democratic side has a lot of must be as well. the dfc if you look and go to indiana and i said montana if you go to montana, you cannot watch tv without seeing nonstop political advertising. and it's not the case. the candidates are the teen any piece of this now. so we have plenty of stuff on our side. i promise you. >> hi. thank you for coming. i want to ask the question for jonathan. thank you for coming. i would like it -- i think everyone here will agree that democracy we have so much money in the so little people, do you

think that undermines democracy because to me as a volunteer i can volunteer a whole year [inaudible] how do you think that is disenfranchise i think you have to look at the tiflt advertise as effectively so i don't know that you want to be put in to a situation where you have a government determining somebody who wants to put the idea up on television can't do that. that's one of the things with the campaign finance is that it's what to nay say about democracy is the worst form of government except for the worst form of government. the campaign finance system may not look perfect. when you look at the alternative i don't know they are god either.

i don't know if it's a good to have the department of justice to determine he can't run television ads. ic you should be able to do that. i think it's a first amendment right. when you move to the constitutional right it starts getting ugly. >> yeah. we don't -- even or side there's been money in elections for forever. lots of money. going back as long as with can. we can go back to george washington and the night before. there was tails of flying rum and beer and the voice rang out the day 6 election day. how to they got out of the book. there's been money and things in politics for as long as we know. i don't think either side of a necessarily thinks the money itself and having money and doing the we need to do campaign is evil. it's about disclosure how they are funded. and for me, for example, if he wants to put up an ad, yes, the supreme court free speech, okay,

put ab ad. stand behind it. tell us who you are and saying. i think it's a different a world what we're living in today. and, you know, i'm many one of the super pac. i'm dealing with it and living it. we're dealing with it because we're not going to disarm as mike said. we're not going to unilaterally disarm. there has to be better way than this. >> thank you for your question. >> hello. thank you for coming. i have a second question. both democratic and republican politicians have publicly spoken out against existence of packs and super pacs say they hurt and current our democratic system. what do you believe on this issue? >> what do you believe? , i mean, i believe the supreme court errorred and that the growth growth of all of the is not necessarily great and i think there has to be a better way. i think that the first thing

that the you've heard talk about it before is the disclose act which has been from the democratic side with no republican support in terms of having disclosure far more disclosure so we know what's going on. i think we would be better off. our democracy is strong. let's be clear. we're okay. we're not dying wayed on this. but there's no question that we still have tweaking to do. don't forget what maggie said. every time we fought in 2004, 2002, it was like the ie and it was about the for a 27 for 2004 and something else in the '06 there's a new interration. that's the other thing, don't ignore that. there's something new will come around. >> that's great. i think most agree we got involved in the corporate process for a reason i have a tremendous faith in the voter in montana who watch every single ad and sit through. we have a great history in our

country of doing that and figuring it out. it is the job of both sides candidates and folks on either side to advocate. i have great faith the voters can figure out. >> excuse me for one second. we're talking east coaster here. remember, when you go to the left coast you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars on ballot initiative. had which is like so much money spend on d.a., d.a., d.a. which is involving something you may have no lou or care about and the air waves are crowded but, you know, the ballot initiative are another thing that are there. and largely funded by individuals or large groups trying to get some point across on both sides. >> hi. it's great to have all of you folks here. unions in the united states are dyeing thing really, something like 12% of the private work force, the -- is the public sector. with the loss of the membership

influence is wane. how long you see them remaining a potent political force. are they still that strong nowadays when you have scott browne -- scott walker in wisconsin able it defeat them a couple of times in ohio they did take some hits. i'm curious to hear that. >> yeah. >> you can start. >> i don't know. on the future, i can't say. i do know, i can go back to 2010 three of the top five spending outside groups were unions. that was reported the wall street jowrnt and i think there's a whole slew of research to back it up. it maybe not on television in other ways they spend money. it's strong in terms of the future of it. i turn it over to maggie. >> like any other sort of sector, if unions don't inte elevate they'll have a problem. i think that's the case for everything, everybody. for a company they have to think about new and unique ways

gifting the heart of what they care about. there's a whole history whether it's civil rights, workers rights, or women's rights where people remember why unioners created. most of the world has no rex why it happened. you had to work 18 hours and never got overtime. you got paid a number you live in a town which you work. people don't understand where the value base came from. there is going to be an evolution or innovation in the movement. i see union doing all kinds of interesting thing. don't corporate affairs work they follow pension resources and they take their own money and create economic development. that's smart. looking how do i get economic activity get my folks. ensure my rate of return. do something to get the economy to move again. i think there's a lot of compelling unions that are think

abouting it circhtly. to underestimate the kind of [inaudible] >> i would say one thing to watch political any in the jersey we come from a unionized state than a lot of states in the south. the union have different power and i think one of the things that is important to watch you saw it in wisconsin and you see in other places it's a growing system between public sector and union work force which is growing and the trade and the private sector. they are different views on politics and very different views on public policy coming from both sides. i think we're at an early stage on that. i think it is something to watch as we go forward in terms of the political objectives of public sector and private sector which ultimately different subjective you will see a bit of divergence in that. >> people love to talk about it. the division between public and private sector unions. there a certain number of tenet

whether you're public or private. [inaudible] what you pay for the service. private sector union have a different obligation to go to work. in the economic or the economy which you live and you're not going to be able to put the private sector members to work. there's been a different agenda in term how they focus on the main public policy question behind that there is a very enormous view on things like collective bar begunking and a series of tenets of it. >> thank you very much. thank you all for coming here and talking to us. my question is you guys talk about before the emergence of super pac and how the candidates kind of influence on what they say and how much of what is being said of their influence. diminished and i was wondering a, how much on the super pac

level wait and see what the candidates does with the campaign or do you strike first with the issues? and, you know, b, in the future do you see more of the super pac setting the issue and in the election cycle or do you kind of wait and see what the candidates does. i know, a lot of the issue talked about come from the media. i was wondering what the influence going forward is. whether or not the super pac set the issue or the candidates themselves. >> well, look, and the super pac worked throw that out for a minute. what you're talking about the independent expenditure. it depend on the race. what both sides are armed with lots of good pollsters, for example, who are looking at numbers . >> like the strategies for example. [laughter] so, you know, trying to figure out what's happening in a race and if we're in a race, for example, and we're doing well,let take indiana, for example, perfect perfect example

where joe donlly didn't have a primary. come out and a strong position. at the end of the primary the republican candidate is left with no money. because he spent all the money attacking. and so we're up all the polls show us ahead. we're doing great and so they have a to sit there and okay, we know murdoch is sitting there with no money. do we jump in and try to help. we know he's going raise money over the next four, six, eight weeks should we fill that time? that's the kind of decisions that all of these independent expenditure go through all the time. sphiems they are -- i think in general we love to take hint from the candidates because even though we're not coordinated which we're not. we don't coordinate the activity. it's better the notion we are taking hints to see sort of what the campaign was like because we don't really want to do do something if they don't like. they're the campaign. they know best what they're doing. but no doubt sometimes we do

we're the ones who jump first. >> i think that's a great answer. >> traditionally to be candid traditionally it's contrasting negative right traditionally right, which you're going see. and i think the obama campaign was clear about this they were not going to wait long to define mitt romney from their perspective in term of their campaign. they felt they didn't do a god job defining romney from the outsed with the economic climate and everything else going on. it would be a more difficult situation. what, you know, jeff and the team have pulled off, right, i think really sort of ingrained in average voters mind a perception of romney. and i think they did it very fine job at it. i think it's part what romney campaign is trying to reposition itself and trying to move forward on. >> the obama campaign did a masterful job too before we go there. >> a lot more money. >> i think -- [inaudible] what percentage do you think of the cross odes and gps ads the federal, the nonpresidential.

you think will be comparative? have some element of positive to it? >> well, glsh did or do at a date. that's an excellent question. because we can't -- because outside groups can't coordinate. i think it's interest farring class like this. outside groups can't coordinate with candidates and party committee for television ads it means the candidate can't star in the ads. right. we could go mitt romney event and film romney footage. would we getting the same things the news crew get. we can't shoot an ad of romney talks to the call are a why he'll be the best president. what it does is the anticoordination laws they almost make all the outside group negative because at that point you know we're not coordinating with barack obama to run a negative ad about him. we were to run a poz ad about mitt romney people would question where you get the footage from.

in 2010 cross roads ran an ad supportive of now senator rob portman in the ohio senate race, we had pulled the video food age from a public i are available place youtube. -- [inaudible] within the fcc over something silly perversely the campaign laws have created a situation there's a lot of contrast advertising because of the prohibition. >> the committee is due. the economic their inexpect arms they doing a bunch of comparative ads. they don't coordinate each of the candidates is throwing the information on the party website. democrats, republicans same thing. there's been more from the committee, and i actually think

there may be more over the closing weeks particularly in the swing states i think the voters are overwhelmed with the negative of the presidential that there may be a more of the contrast things because that even the independent groups are saying you know what? they need a boost like we need to say something nice about the people. >> if you can, we're going it take the question. it's the last question. a few minutes left. we want to do the speakers closing arguments. >> with a you mentioned with the noncoordination law. i'm curious if you could further elaborate on the complexity that go in to making the ads because i could see there's a very balance between muting the candidate or maybe saying something negative to the candidate. what is the criteria you specifically use to create these ads? are that part of a campaign plan in the super pac or do you just look at the other -- president or governor romney and take it from there?

>> want to talk about how you turn research in to ab ad. >> sure. it is a very research-based thing. the whole process. i mean, campaigns are research-based. so both sides -- we are armed with data. we want to test various things and what are people persuaded by? this message or that message? social security, education, health care? what are the messages that will move people and we develop ads that are based on some of those message. one point in the throws the 9 campaign we have to be able to call them off. you have to be able to say, okay, we were going to do this, but the other side is doing x and so maybe we got to go there. in the beginning the best laid plans are there and they inevitably go all over the place. which is awful about our job. truthly i love everything about my job. what can be greater i wake up everything? i do politics for a living, and i have a blast.

we love what we do. all of us get in this love the game, lo love what we're doing. love elected people we believe in and makes it nice is it's never the same. >> i also wouldn't ever underestimate the amount of research that goes any to political ad bay professor professional organization. it's a big group you saw the edit we ran. there were literally throw or four verification behind every assertion we make. so because the goal -- you never want to get an ad pulling the ad. it's terrible. in cross roads, i don't think we have had an ad pulled. one of the reasons because we have a team of researchers who are literally making sure that every assertion we make in the ad is bullet pointed with different level of verification to make sure it's factual. >> in term how the outside group

work used to run campaigns or basically if you're doing a good job running ads you're trying to figure out if i was running the campaign what would be helpful to see on tv. the kind of most responsible, i think, and the most effective outside groups are general run by people with significant campaign experience who understand the outside group can screw things up if they run the ad. they can be helpful if they rupp the right. >> i think to go on what johnathan said. an outside group, if the ad is false, if the ad can be proven to be inaccurate, the tv stations can pull off the air. if you change it, it is deemed ton false they can pull it off the air. it is almost impossible to do that to a candidate. a candidate have the freedom to say almost whatever they want. but we're much more conscious on the independent expenditure side both sides the campaigns are too. we spend lot of time on the back end as he said researching making sure the facts are right. we don't want them pulled.

we spend money on both sides figuring out the message. once they create the ad depending on time frame we may test the ads focus groups online testing. there's a lot of different ways we're trying to figure out do they work or not. both sides are armed with the vast masses of information to try to get to those small number of voters we're talking to. >> we have a couple of minutes left. i thought if you wanted to leave the audience with one last thought about sort of the role that you think the super pacs are playing in this particular presidential race and of course, no surprise. we would love for you to handicap the congress in the presidential race. >> thank you. it's been great. i would go back to what i was saying ability the tongs between an elected representative and the constituents. if american cross roads runs an atd about obamacare we are not influences what the public thinks about obamacare. we're educating viewers about the record of a candidate or

elected official on the position on obamacare. it's difficult for a group to impact what people think about abortion or tax increase. they are values that have developed over decades with voters. but when you can do is you can educate voters' specially in situations where the candidate or elected official has done something that is side ways with what the constituents any. i think it provides more information in the political process. you think about what the alternatives are. a press pro excess like this you can have a situation where you have public taxpayer funded ads. you have people not liking taxes or funding. negative ads you can end up with all kinds of censorship. it's critical to -- how we need to change the system. >> thanks. obamacare, the most preverse -- national of a policy plan done by the right-wing where we have

all the groups jonathan is talking about talking about $7 16 trillion or billion i forget what it is? cut to medicare which isn't true. and even if you wanted to say it was true, every republican said he's supporting also supports the exact same thing. they are accounted for in the ryan budget minus $200 million so $916 billion. these are the things i think are problematic in terms how the policy debate and i think that the super packs only make it worse. you have individuals who have personal opinions they are trying to force upon people. i think we would be better off with a -- we would be. i'm happy to be a part of super pac. i'm happy to defend barack obama he's the beefs and next president of the united states. and that's great. but do i wish this didn't have to be? yeah. i do.

and i think that experiencing connecticut in public finance we have campaigns and in new york city they work fine. and voters while they may say they're not happy with taxpayer funded campaigns, you know, things have gone smoothly in a lot of the places that have public financing. i think that the rhetoric doesn't match the reality at the end of the day. we'll see where it goes. more likely i'll i think we'll see changes to the law and then the next incarnation of super super pac. >> thank you for coming. we are running a campaign that is important to everybody in this room in new jersey. vote question on ballot question one. to put money forward hirer education in new jersey. for a good reason which is toik may the students world class educate. keep as many business z and jobs. vote yes on question one. thank you for tonight.

[applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] you're live in denver for the first presidential debate of 2012. between president obama and mitt romney. held at the university of denver. there are no opening statements, we're ready to here moderator introduce the candidates and ask

the first question. >> moderator: i remember good evening. [laughter] [inaudible]

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. they lag. it is two minutes. they are just testing us. they are just testing us.

[inaudible conversations] >> moderator:..it. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> moderator: 30 seconds, folks. let's have a terrific evening for all of you. good evening from the madness

arena at the university of colorado. im jim lehrer of the pbs "newshour." i welcome you to the 2012 debates between barack obama, the democratic nominee and former massachusetts governor, mitt romney, the republican nominee. this debate in the next three, two presidential, one vice presidential are sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. tonight's 90 minutes will be about domestic issues that will follow a format designed by the commission. there will be six roughly 15 minute segment with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion for the remainder of each segment. thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects or questions via the internet and other means, but i made the final selections. and for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the commission or the

candidates. the segments as i announced in a van will be three on the economy and one each on health care, the role of government and governing, with an emphasis throughout the difference is, specific century says. both candidates will also have two-minute closing statements. the audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent. no cheers, applause, boos, hisses among other noisy distracting things. so we may all concentrate on what the candidates have to say. there is a nice exception right now, though, as we welcomed president obama and governor romney. [cheers and applause]

>> moderator: gentlemen, welcome to you both. let's start with the economy. segment one. and let's begin with jobs. what are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs? you have two minutes. each of you have two minutes to start. the coin toss has determined. mr. president come you go first. obama: thank you for this opportunity. i want to thank governor romney and the university of denver for your hospitality. there's a lot of points i want to make, but the most important is 20 years ago i became the luckiest man on earth because michelle obama agreed to marry me. i just want to mention chemistry

d., you have a university and lets you know now we will not be celebrating in front of 40 million people. four years ago, we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions of jobs were lost. the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. the financial system have frozen up. and because of the resilience and determination of the american people, we have begun to fight our way back. over the last 30 months, we have seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. the auto industry has come roaring back and housing has begun to rise. but we all know that we've still got a lot of work to do. so the question here tonight is not where we've been, but where we are going. governor romney has a perspective that has if we cut taxes, skew towards the wealthy and rollback regulations that will be better off. i've got a different view.

i think we've got to invest in education and training. it is important for us to develop new sources of energy here in america, that we change our tax code to make sure we are helping small businesses and companies investing in the united states. do we take some of the money we are saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild america and that we reduce our deficit and a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments. now, ultimately it will be up to the voters, to you, which path we should take. are we going to double down on the top-down economic policy that helped to get us into this mess cliques or do we embrace a new economic patriotism that says america does best when the middle classed as fast. i am looking forward to having that debate. >> moderator: governor romney, two minutes. romney: thank you, jim. i am pleased to be at the university of denver and i appreciate their welcome and also the presidential commission on these debates.

congratulations to you, mr. president on your anniversary. i'm sure this is the most romantic place you can imagine here with me. [laughter] congratulations. this is obviously a very tender topic. identification of the last couple years many people across the country. i was in dayton, ohio, and a woman grabbed my hand and said she'd been out of work since may. can you help me? yesterday was a rally in denver and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. he has lost his most recent job and we cannot just lost our home. can you help us? the answer is yes, we can help, but it is going to take a different path. not the one we have been on, not the one the president described as a top down cut taxes for the rich. that is not what i'm going to do. my plan has five basic parts. one, get us energy independent. that creates about 4 million jobs. number two, open more trade,

particularly latin america, crackdown on china if and when they cheat. number three, make sure people have the skills they need to succeed. number number four, get us to a balanced budget. number five, championed small-business. it is small business that creates the jobs in america and over the last four years, small business people have decided that america may not be the place to open a new business has new business startups are down to a 30 year low. i know what it takes to get small-business growing again, to hire people. i am concerned the path we are on has been unsuccessful. the president has a few very similar to the view he had when he ran for years ago, the bigger government comest anymore, taxing work, regulating more, if you will, chuckled on government would work. that is not the right answer for america. i will restore the vitality that gets america working again. thank you. >> moderator: mr. president,

please respond directly to what the governor said about trickle-down, his trickle-down approach as he said yours is. obama: an attack specifically about what they need to do. first, we've got to improve our education system. we have made enormous progress trying on ideas both from democrats and republicans that are already starting to show gains in some of the toughest to deal with schools. we've got a program called race to the top that has prompted reforms in 46 states around the country, raising standards, improving how we hire teachers. not to hire new math and science teachers and create 2 million more slots in our community colleges so people can get trained for the jobs out there right now. and i want to make sure we keep tuition low for our young people. when it comes to our tax code, governor romney and i both agree are corporate tax rate is too high, so i want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing.

taken it down to 25%. but i also want to close those loopholes that give incentives for companies shipping jobs overseas. i want to provide tax breaks for companies investing in the united states upon energy. governor romney and i both agree that we've got to boost american energy production and oil and natural gas production are higher than they have been in years. but i also believe that we've got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels and make those investments. so, all of this is possible. now in order for us to do agree how to to close our deficit in one of the things we will discuss tonight is how do we do with our tax code and how do we make sure we are reducing spending in a responsible way, but also how do we have enough revenue to make those investments? this is where there is a difference because governor ronnie central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of the extension of the bush tax cut in $2 trillion in

additional to let terry spending that the military has amassed four. that's $8 trillion. how we pay for that can reduce the deficit and make the investments we need to make without dumping those costs onto middle-class americans i think is one of the central questions of his campaign. >> moderator: wrote that you have spoken about a lot of different things that we will try to get through them in as specific a way as we can. first, governor romney, to have a question you'd you'd like to ask the president directly about something he just said? romney: sure come i'd like to clear up the record and go by piece by piece. i am about $5 trillion tax cut. i do have a tax cut of the scale you're talking about. we have to provide tax relief to people in the middle class, but i'm not going to reduce the pair taxes paid by high-income people. high-income people to find this economy. so to find whether your president or im. the people having a hard time right now are middle income

americans. under the president policies come and middle income are buried. middle income americans have seen their income come down by $4300. this is a tax in and of itself. i call it the economy tax. it's been crushing. at the same time, gasoline prices have doubled, electric rates up in the fruit prices are up, health care costs have gone up by $2500 a family. middle income families are being crushed. so the question is how to get them going again. i described it, energy, trade, balancing our budget and helping small business. those are the cornerstones of my plan. the president mentioned a couple other ideas. i will just know first education. i agree education is key, particular the future of our economy, the training programs are now 47 house and federal government reporting to a different agencies. overhead is overwhelming. we've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get the training they need for jobs that will

really help them. the second area, taxation. we agree we have to bring the tax rates down. i agree for corporations and individuals. but in order to not lose revenue, have a government run out of money, i also lower deductions and credits and exemptions which he taken the same money would also account for growth. the third area, energy. energy is critical in the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the u.s. is up, but not due to his policies. despite of his policies. mr. president, all the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. on government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. if i am president, i will double them and also get the oil from offshore in alaska and bring a pipeline from canada. and by the way, i let cool. i will make sure we continue to burn clean coal. people in the coal industry feel

like it's getting crushed by your policies. i went to get america and north america energy independence so we can get those jobs. with regards to the tax-cut, i am not looking to cut nasa's taxes and reduce revenues going to the government. my number one principle is there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. no tax cuts as to the deficit. but i do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle income americans. to do that that means i cannot reduce the burden paid by high income americans. any language to the contrary simply not accurate. >> moderator: mr. president. obama: let's talk about taxes because they think it is instructive. four years ago when i stood on the stage, i said that i would cut taxes for middle-class families and that's exactly what i did. we cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3600. and the reason is because i believe that we do best when the

middle class is doing well. and by giving them those taxes, they have a little more money in their pocket, so maybe they can bite in your car. they are certainly a better position to weather the extraordinary recession we went through. they can buy a computer for the kid going to college. they can spend my money, business have more profits and hire more workers. now, governor promised proposal that has been promoted for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for military. and he is saying that he is going to pay by closing loopholes and deductions. the problem is he's been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes and he hasn't been able to identify them. i'm going to make an important point here, jim. when you add all the loopholes and deductions that upper income

individuals are currently taking advantage of, you take those all the way, you don't come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts into trying dollars in additional military spending. that is what independent studies looking at is that the only way to meet governor romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit, or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening the middle-class families, the average middle-class family with children would pay about $2000 more. now that is not my analysis. if the analysis of the economist to look this. that kind of top-down economics camorra folks at the top or two in welcome us to the average person making 3 million bucks is getting a $250,000 tax break, i'll middle-class families are burden further. that is not what i believe is a recipe for economic growth. >> moderator: what is the difference? lets you stay on taxes for a moment. what is the difference?

romney: virtually everything he said about my tax plan is inaccurate. if the tax when he described were tax plan i would support i would absolutely not. what i said as i will put in place a tax cut as to the deficit. that is part 1. there is no economist second thing to promise tax plan as 5 trillion if i say i will not add to the deficit with my tax plan. number two, i will not reduce share paid by high-income individuals. i knew in your running mate keeps saying that and it's a popular thing to say that a lot of people, but it's just not the case. look, i've got five boys. i'm used to people saying something not only true, but keep repeating it hoping i'll believe it. but that is not the case. i will not reduce taxes paid by high-income americans. and number three, i will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. i will lower taxes on middle income families. now, you cite a study. their six other studies that

look in it's completely wrong. i saw a study that came out today that says you are going to raise taxes by $3000 to $4000. they're all the studies out there. let's get to the bottom line. i want to bring down rates. i want to bring down the rates, to think and lower deductions exemptions and credits so we keep getting the revenue we need. you think, then why lower the rate? the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. 54% of america's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate. and if we lower that rate, they will be up to hire more people. for me, this is about jobs. this is about getting jobs for the american people. >> moderator: do you challenge with the governor said about his own plan? obama: well, for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan and now, five weeks before the election, he is saying that is big old idea is nevermind.

the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you describe, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle-class. it is not. it is arithmetic. now, governor romney and i do share a deep interest in encouraging small business growth. so at the same time that my tax plan has 30 lower taxes for 98% of families, i also lower taxes for small businesses 18 times. what i want to do is continue to tax rates, the tax cuts we put in place for small businesses and families. but i have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the race we had when bill clinton was

president, when we created 22 million jobs, what from deficit to surplus and created a whole created a lot of millionaires to boot. the reason this is important is because they doing that we can not only reduce the deficit. we can not only encourage job growth of small businesses, but were also to make investments necessary in education or in energy. and we do have a difference when it comes to definitions of small business. under my plan, 97% of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. governor romney says well, those top 3% of the job creators they burdened. under governor romney's definition, as a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small-business. donald trump is a small business. i know donald trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything, but that is how you define small businesses after getting small-business income. that kind of approach i believe will not grow our economy

because the only way to pay for without either burdening the middle-class or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are continuing to invest in basic science or research, all the things helping america grow. i think that would be a mistake. romney: jam, when they come back on this point. >> moderator: excuse me, just so everybody understands, we are way over our first 15 minutes. no problem. if you don't have a problem, i don't have a problem because were still on the economy. we want to move onto the deficit and a lot of other things, too. go ahead, sir. romney: you bet. with regards to 97% of the businesses are not taxed at 35% tax rate. they are taxed at a lower rate. but those businesses in the last 3% happen to employ half, half of all the people who work in

small business. those are the businesses that employ one quarter of all the workers in america. in your plan is to take the tax rate from 35% to 40%. i talked to a guy who is a very small business. he is in the electronics business in st. louis. he has 40 employees. his son tackling how much they pay in taxes. federal income tax, federal payroll tax, state sales tax, state property tax, gasoline tax added up to well over 50% of what they earned. in your plan is to take the tax rate on successful small businesses from 35% to 40%. the national federation of independent businesses has said that will cost 700,000 jobs. i don't want to cost jobs. my priority is jobs. and so, what i do is bring down the tax rates. lower deductions and exemptions. the same idea behind simpson/bowles, by the way, get the rates down to create more jobs because there is nothing

better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, pay more taxes. that is by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced. obama: jim come you may want to move onto another topic, but i want to say this to the american people. if you believe we can cut taxes by $5 trillion that $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for, $7 trillion, just to get a sense of her 10 years, that is more than our entire defense budget. anything by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then governor romney's plan may work for you. but i think math, common sense in our history shows us that is not a recipe for job growth. look, we tried this. we've tried both approaches.

the approach that governor romney is talking about is the same sales pitch made in 2001 and 2003. and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years. we ended up moving from surplus to deficit and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. bill clinton tried the approach that i'm talking about. we created 23 million new jobs, what from deficit to surplus and businesses did very well. so in some ways they've got some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for americans. and i believe the economy works best when middle-class families are getting tax breaks so that they've got the money in their pocket. most of us who have done extraordinarily well because of this magnificent country that we live in, that we can afford to do a little bit more to make sure we are blowing up the deficit.

romney: the president began the segment, so i think we get the last word. he gets the first part of that segment, i get the last part of that segment. let me just make this comment. let me repeat what i said. i am not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. that is not my plan. my plan is not to put in place and a tax cut that lead to the deficit. that is .1. you may keep referring to that effect on dollars tax cut, but that is not my plan. number two, let's look at history. tipping is not like anything tried before. my plan is to bring down rates, but also deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so that the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working. my priority is putting people back to work. they are suffering in this country. and we talked about evidence. look at the evidence of the last four years. it is absolutely extraordinary. we've got 23 million people out of work or stop working on trent looking for work in this

country. the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps, 47 million on food stamps today. economic growth this year is lower than last year. unless you're slower than the year before. going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the american people struggling today. >> moderator: all right, we are still on the economy. this is theoretically nice second segment still on the economy and specifically on what to do about the federal deficit. federal debt. and the question, you each have two minutes on this. and governor romney, you go first because the president won't first on the first one. what is the difference between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country. romney: good. i'm glad you raise that. it's a critical issue. it's not just an economic issue. i think it's a moral issue. if it is frankly not moral for my generation to spend massively

more than we take in, knowing those burdens will be passed on to the next generation. and they are going to be paying the interest and principal author lies. the amount of debt we are adding a trillion a year is simply not moral. so how do we deal with? mathematically there were three ways that you can cut a deficit. one of course is to raise taxes. number two is to cut spending and number three is to grow the economy because the smart people work in a growing economy, they are paying taxes and you can get the job done that way. the president would prefer raising taxes. i understand the problem with raising taxes is that flows down the rate of growth and you could never quite get the job done. i want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time. but things with a cut from spending? well, first of all i eliminate all programs by this test if they don't pass it. it's a program so critical is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it. if not, i'll get rid of it. obama carries on my list. i apologize, mr. president.

to use that term with all respect. obama: i like it. romney: okay good. i like pbs. i love big bird. i actually like u2, but i'm not going to spend money and things of our money from china to pay for. that's number one. number two, will take programs that are currently good programs will be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to stay. number three, i will make agencies and departments. the cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way. this is the approach we have to take to get america to a balanced budget. the president said he would cut the deficit in half. unfortunately, he doubled that. trillion dollar deficits for the last four years. the president has put it in place as much public debt, almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined. >> moderator: mr. president, two minutes. obama: when i walked in and oval office at more than a $3 trillion deficit greeting me.

we know where it came from, to worst paid for in a credit card, to tax cuts that were not paid for and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for and then a massive economic crisis. and despite that, what we have said is yes, we had to take some initial emergency measures to make sure we didn't slip into a great depression. but what we have also said is let's make sure we are cutting out those things that are not helping us grow. so, 77 government programs, everything from aircraft that the air force had ordered, but won't working very well. 18 government programs for education that were well-intentioned but weren't helping kids learn. we went after medical fraud in medicare and medicaid. aggressively. more aggressively than ever before and have saved tens of billions of dollars. $50 billion of waste taken on the system. i worked with democrats and

republicans to cut a trillion dollars out of our discretionary domestic budget. that is the largest cat in the discretionary domestic budget since dwight eisenhower. now, we all know that we've got to do more, so i put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. it's on a website. you can look at all the numbers, what cuts they make and what revenue we base. and the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut we ask her $1 of additional revenue will come it paid asking those of us would've done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit. governor romney earlier mentioned the simpson/bowles commission. well that's how the bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested we have to do it, and a balanced way with some revenue and some spending cuts. and this is a major difference to governor romney and i have. let me jt finish this point because you are looking for contrast.

when governor romney stood on a stage with other republican candidates for the nomination, and he was asked, would you take $10 of spending cuts for just 1 dollar of revenue? he said no. now, if you take such an unbalanced approach, then that means you're going to be cutting our investments in schools and education. it means that governor romney talked about medicaid and how we can send them back to the states. but effectively this means that 30% cut in the primary program would help for seniors in nursing homes, kids who are with disabilities. and that is not a right strategy for us to move forward. >> moderator: president, we are the two minutes. obama: sorry. >> moderator: will you support bowles/simpson? romney: i have my own plan. it's not the same as bowles/simpson. if you want to make adjustments,

go to congress, fight for it. obama: that's what we've done. before trying dollars plan. romney: you've been president for years. he said you'd cut the deficit in half or the cbo says leather chewing dollars deficit each of the next four years. if you're reelected we will get to a trillion dollars debt. you have said before you cut the deficit in half. i love this idea for trillion cuts pretty fun for trillion dollars and ways to reduce or get closer to a balanced budget is still showed trillion dollars deficit every year. that doesn't get the job done. on the come back and say, why is it that i don't want to raise taxes? why would i want to raise taxes on people? you said back in 2010, i am going to extend tax policies we have. i'm not going to raise taxes on anyone because when the economy is growing so like this, one way or recession recession you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone. well, the economy still growing

so. as a matter of fact, going much more slowly now than when he made that statement. so if you believe the same thing can you just don't want to raise taxes on people. the reality is it's not just wealthy people. it's not just donald trump you are taxing. it's all those businesses that employ one quarter of the workers of america. small businesses taxed as individuals. you have raise taxes any skill jobs. that's why the national federation of independent business said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. i want to kill jobs in this environment. i'll make one more point. >> moderator: let's go to the taxes thing for a moment. mr. president. obama, well, we've had this discussion before. >> moderator: in order to reduce the deficit, there has to be revenue in addition to cuts. obama: governor romney has ruled out revenue. romney: look, the revenue i get is by more people working, getting higher pay, pay more

taxes. that's how we get growth and balance the budget. the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work, he'll never get there. he never balance the budget by raising taxes. spain spends 42% of their total economy and government. we are now spending 42% of our economy and government. i don't want to go down the path of spain. i want to go down the path of growth that puts americans to work with more money coming and because they are working. >> moderator: mr. president, you say in order to get the job done it's got to be balanced. obama: if we are serious camargo to take a balanced responsible approach. this is not just when it comes to individual taxes. let's talk about corporate taxes. now, i identified areas where we can right away make a change that i believe would actually help the economy. the oil industry is $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. basically they get deductions of those small businesses that

governor romney refers to, they don't care. not if anybody think that exxonmobil needs some extra money when they are making money every time you go to the pump? why would we want to eliminate that? why would we want to eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? my attitude is if you got a corporate jet, you'll afford to pay full freight and not get a special break for it. when it comes to corporate taxes, governor romney said in a revenue neutral way, close loopholes, deductions if he hasn't identified which ones they are, but that will thereby bring down the corporate rate. i've actually identified how we can do that. and part of the way to do it is to not give tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas. right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plan overseas. i think those americans who say that doesn't make sense at all

that raises revenue. so if we take a balanced approach, but that then allows us to do is also to help young people, the way they had during my administration make sure they can afford to go to college. it means that the teacher i met in las vegas, wonderful young lady who describes to me, she's got 42 kids in her class. the first two weeks, she's got some of them sitting on the floor until finally they are reassigned. that is not a recipe for growth. that is not how america was built. and though, budgets reflect choices. ultimately we're going to have to make some decisions. if we are asking for no revenue, that means we got to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff and the magnitude of the tax cuts are talking about, governor, would end up resulting in severe hardship for people, but more importantly help us grow. as i indicated before, we talk about shifting medicaid to save,

we are talking about potentially a 30 -- a 30% cut in medicaid over time. now, that may not seem like a big deal when its members on a sheet of paper, but if were talking about a family with a not just a kid and depending on the medicaid, that is a big problem. governors are creative. there's no doubt about it. they are not creative enough to make 30% of revenue in something like medicaid. some people end up not getting how. romney: jim, were on a lot of topics there. it could take a minute to go from medicaid to oils to tax breaks and companies going overseas. one by one, the department of energy said the tax break for companies is to donate billion dollars a year. it is an incoming treatment in place for a hundred years. obama: time to end it. romney: in one year you provided

$90 million in breaks to the green energy world. now i like green energy as well, but that is just 50 years of spain with oil and gas are seized and you say exxon and mobil, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small business for drilling operators and so forth. that $2.8 billion is on the table. of course it's on a table. that is not going to survive to get every to 25%. but don't forget it, you put $90 billion, like 50 years worth of breaks into solar and wind to sue under a too fiscal and tesla. you don't pick the winners and losers. you pick the losers. so this is not the kind of policy you want to have. you want to get america energy secure. the topic is you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. look, i've been in business for 25 years. i have no idea which are talking

about. i maybe need to get a new accountant, but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case. but we do have now is bring in money overseas back to this country. finally, medicaid state. i'm not sure where this came from except i would like to take the medicaid dollars to go to states and say to us or you get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1%. and then you are going to manage or care for your poor in the way you think best. i remember as a governor when the sky was floated by tommy thompson, the governors, republican said please let us do that. we can do so much better and more effective away than having the federal government tell us how to care for the poor. one of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea that the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have and what kind of medicaid they have to have. let states do this.

either way, they say gets in trouble or we can step in and find ways to help them. but the right approach is one which relies on the brilliance of our people and states, not the federal government. >> moderator: we are still on the economy, but another part of it. all right, all right. this is segment three of the economy, entitlements. first answer goes to you, two minutes, mr. president. do you see a major difference between the two of you on social security? obama: you know, i suspect that on social security we've got a somewhat similar position. social security is structurally sound. it will have to be tweaked the way was by ronald reagan and democratic speaker tip o'neill, but it is the basic structure is sound. but i want to talk about the values behind social security and medicare and then talk about medicare because that's the big driver of our deficits right now. you know, my grandmother, some

of you know, helped raise me. my grandparents day. my grandfather died a while back. my grandmother died three days before i was elected a president. she worked her way up, only a high school education, started as the secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. she ended up living alone by choice. and the reason she could be independent was because of social security and medicare. she had worked all her life, but in this money and understood that there was a basic guarantee him a floor under which she could not go. and that is the perspective i bring with entitlements. the name itself implies some sort of dependency and the part of these folks. these are folks who've worked hard, like my grandmother, and millions of people out there are counting on this. so my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term? and in medicare, what we did,

was we said we are going to have to bring down the cost if we are going to do with their long-term deficit. but to do that, let's look for some of the money is going. $760 million we were able to save from the medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies, then making sure that we weren't overpaying providers and using that money, we were able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600 we were also able to make a statement content and providing them the kind of preventive care that will ultimately save money throughout the system. so the way for us to deal with medicare in particular is to lower health care costs. when it comes to social security, as i said, you do not need to major structural change in order to make sure social security is there for the future. >> moderator: follow-up on this. first, governor romney you have two minutes on social security and entitlements. romney: well, jim, our seniors

depend on these programs. anytime i talk about entitlements, people become concerned that something will happen they'll change their life for the worse. the answers to the the president nor i are proposing any changes were retirees or curt retired east either to social security or medicare. so if you are 60 or 60 older come you don't need to listen any further. but for younger people, we need to talk about what changes will be occurring. i just thought about want and that is in fact that i was wrong when the president isn't imposing any taxes on medicare. on social security is not. but for current retirees, he is cutting $716 billion of the program. now he says by not overpaying hospitals and providers. actually going insane were going to reduce the rates you get paid across the board, everybody will get a lower rate. that is not just going to places where there is abuse, that is cutting the rates. some 15% of hospitals and nursing homes say they won't

take any more medicare patients under that scenario. we also have 50% of doctors who say they won't take medicare patients. we have 4 million people in medicare advantage double its medicare advantage because of the $716 billion cut. i can't understand how you can cut medicare $716 million for current recipients of medicare. i you point out were putting for mac, give a better prescription program. that is one for every 15 euro cut. there smartness to know that it's not a good trade. i want to take the $716 billion you can't put it back into medicare. we cannot put a prescription program over need to improve it, but the idea of cutting $760 million for medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of obamacare is a mistake. with regards to young people coming along, i got proposals to make sure medicare and social security are there for them without any questions.

>> moderator: mr. president. obama: first of all, i think it is important for governor romney to present his plan he says only affect folks in the future. in the essence of the plan as he would turn medicare into a voucher program. it is called premiums support, but it's understood to be a voucher program. his running mate -- >> moderator: don't support that? obama: i don't. and then explain why. romney: that's for future people, not current retirees. obama: if you are 54 or 55 come you might want to listen because this will affect you. the idea originally presented by congressman ryan, your running mate, is that we would get a voucher to seniors and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance. the problem is that because the voucher would necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated this would cost the average senior about $6000 a

year. now in fairness, what governor romney has now said as he will maintain traditional medicare alongside it. but there's still a problem because what happens is those insurance companies are pretty clever at figuring out who were the younger and healthier seniors. they recruit them, leaving the older, sicker seniors in medicare. and every health care economist who looks who looks at us as overtime what will happen is the traditional medicare system will collapse. and then, which are of god is folks at the mercy of the private insurance system, precisely at the time when they are most in need of decent health care. so i don't think vouchers are the right way to go. this is not only my opinion. aarp thinks that this savings that we obtained from medicare bolster the system, linked in the medicare trust fund by eight years. benefits were not affected at all and ironically if you repeal

obamacare, and i have become fond of this term, obamacare, if you repeal it, what happens is those seniors right away will be paying $600 more in prescription care and will now be paying co-pays for basic checkups that can keep them healthier and the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back when they are making seniors any healthier. and i don't think that's the right approach when it comes to making sure that medicare is stronger over the long-term. >> moderator: will talk specifically about health care in a moment. do you support the voucher system, governor? romney: what i support is no change for current retirees and near retirees to medicare and the president supports taking $716 billion under that program. so that his number one. number two is for people coming along better job, what i do to

make sure we keep medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current medicare program or a private plan, their choice. and they will have at least two planes that will be entirely at no cost to them. so they have to pay additional money, no additional $6000. they will have at least two plans. by the way, if the government can be a sufficient as the private sector, people will be happy to get traditional medicare, or the ability to a private plan. i know my own view is that rather have a private plan. i just assume not having the government cytokinin health care get. i'd rather have an insurance company. if i don't like them i can get rid of them and find a different insurance company. let the people make their own choice. we had to benefit tie for those that are low income, but for high-income people we have deliver some of the benefits. we have to make sure the program is there for the long-term. that is the plan i put forward. by the way, the idea came from

not even paul ryan or senator wyden, a co-author of the bill for senator ryan in the senate, but came from bill clinton's chief of staff. this is an idea that's been around a long time cometh a must if we can't take competition into the medicare world so that people can get the choice of different plans to lower lower costs, better quality i believe in competition. obama: if i could just respond very quickly. every study is shown there's lower administrative costs than private insurance does, which is why seniors are generally pretty happy with it. and private insurers have to make a profit. nothing wrong with that. that's what they do. and so, you've got higher administrative costs plus profit on top of that. and if you are going to save any money through what governor romney is proposing, what has to happen is that the money has to come from somewhere. and when you move to a voucher system, you are putting seniors that the mercy of those

insurance companies and over time the traditional medicare has decayed or fallen apart, then they are stuck. and this is why the recent aarp has said that your plan would weaken medicare substantially. and that is why they were supportive of the approach that we took it one last point i want to make. we do have to lower the cost of health care. not just in medicare, but overall. romney: that's a big topic. >> moderator: want to get to it. romney: let's get back to medicare. the government said he could read the service at lower cost and without a profit. if that's the case, then it will be the best product people can purchase. but my experience is the private sector typically is able to provide a better product at a lower cost. >> moderator: can the two of you agree that the voters have a choice, a care choice on

medicare. romney: absolutely. >> moderator: to finish quickly, briefly on the economy, what is your view of the federal regulation of the economy right now? is there too much? and in your case, mr. president, should there be more? beginning with you, this is not a new two-minute segment. we will go for a few minutes and then we're going to health care, okay? romney: regulation is essential. you can't have a free market work if you're not regulation. as a businessperson, i needed the regulations they are. you couldn't have people opening up banks in their garage and mickey mouse. you have to have regulation so you can have an economy work. at the same time, regulation can become excessive. >> moderator: is it excessive now? romney: in some places, yes. it can become out of date. some of the legislation passed during the present strength, using regulation become

excessive and asserted the economy. let me give an example. thought frank was passed and it includes a number of christians that i think has unintended consequences harmful to the economy. one is that designates a number of drinks too big to fail and they are guaranteed by the federal government. this is the biggest case given to me are things i've ever seen. this is an enormous room for them. 122 community and small banks have closed since dodd-frank. here's another -- >> you want to repeal dodd-frank? romney: you have to have regulation. there were some parts of dodd-frank daneyko the sense the sense in the world. you have to transparency, leveraged limits. let me mention the other one. >> moderator: let's let him respond. this is specific on dodd-frank and what the governor just said. romney: well, i think this is a great example.

the reason we have been in such an enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board. now, it wasn't just on wall street. you have loan officers that were given loans and mortgages that really shouldn't have been given because folks didn't qualify. yet people borrowing money to buy houses they couldn't afford. you have credit agencies stand beneath this a one great investments when were. but you also had banks making money hand over fist, churning out products that the bankers themselves didn't even understand, in order to make their profits, but knowing that it may -- made the entire system vulnerable. so we have the toughest reforms on wall street. he said you've got to raise their capital requirements.

you can't engage in some other risky behavior putting main street at risk. we're going to make sure that you've got to have a living will so we can know how you're going to wind exactly make a bad back, so we don't have other taxpayer bailouts. in the meantime, we also made sure that all the help we provided those banks was paid back every single dime of interest. now, governor romney has said he wants to repeal dodd-frank and i appreciate, and it appears we've got agreement that the market place to work has to have some regulation. in the past, governor romney says he wants to repeal dodd-frank, roll it back. so the question is, does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of wall street? because if you do, then governor romney is your candidate. but that's not what i believe.

romney: that's just not the facts. look, we have showed regulation of wall street. i windbags and 85 banks is too big to fail and give them a blank check. that is one of the unintended consequences. it wasn't thought through properly. we need to get rid of the small banks. let me mention that the regulation dodd-frank. he said we were giving mortgages to people who were qualified. that's exactly right. that's one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we have. so dodd-frank says we have to qualified mortgages. and if you get the mortgage is not qualified, very big penalties. except they didn't want to define what a qualified mortgage was. it has been two years and we don't know whether qualified mortgages yet. so banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. try and get a mortgage these days. it has hurt the housing market because dodd-frank didn't anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. it is not the dodd-frank was

always wrong with too much regulation. sometimes they didn't come out with a clear regulation. i will make sure we don't have the functioning of our marketplace and businesses because i want to bring back housing and get good jobs. >> moderator: i think we have another clear difference between the two of you. now let's move to health care, where i know there is a clear difference and that has to do with the affordable care act, obamacare, and it is a new segment. that means two minutes each in you go first, governor romney. you wanted repeal. you want the affordable care act repealed. why? romney: i do. in part it comes from my experience. obviously new hampshire woman came to me and said look, i can afford insurance for myself or my son. and then a couple in appleton, wisconsin and they said were thinking of dropping our insurance. we can afford it. the number of small businesses are dropping insurance because they can't afford it. the cost of health care issue is

prohibited and we've got to do with cost. and unfortunately, when you look at obamacare, the congressional budget office has said it will cost $2500 a year more than traditional experience. so it is adding to costs. as a matter of fact, the president ran for office, he said the teacher he would've brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2500 a family. instead it's gone up by that amount. so it is expensive. expensive things hurt families. that is one reason i don't want to. second reason, you cut $716 billion for medicare to pay for it. i want to put that money back in medicare for seniors. number three, it puts in place an unelected board that will tell people ultimately what kind of treatment they can have. i don't like that idea. fourth, there was a survey done of small businesses across the country that says what has been the effect of obamacare on your plants. reporters said it makes us less likely to hire people.

i just don't know how the government can come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, and economic crisis at the kitchen table and spend his energy and passion were two years fighting for obamacare instead of jobs for the american people. it has killed jobs. the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state, crafty plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state. and then let's focus on getting the cost down for people, rather than racing with a $2500 additional premium. >> moderator: mr. president, the argument against repeal. obama: welcome before years ago when i was running or office i was having the same conversation governor romney is talking about. and it wasn't just that mall businesses were seen costs skyrocket and they couldn't get affordable coverage even if they want to provide to their employees. it wasn't that this was the federal drivers driver, but it

was families who are worried about going encrypted they got sick. millions of families all across the country. they had a preexisting condition. it may not feel to get coverage at all. if they did have coverage, insurance companies might impose an arbitrary limit. and so come as a consequence they are paying their premiums. if somebody gets really sick, lo and behold they don't have enough money to pay the bills because the insurance companies say they have hit the limit. so, we did work on this, alongside working on jobs because this is part of making sure that no class families are securing this country. monday to you exactly what obamacare did. number one come if you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. you keep your own insurance. you keep your road doctor. ..

the last point i make before. >> moderator: it's up. obama: i think i had five seconds before he interrupted me. the irony is that we have seen the model work really well. in massachusetts because governor romney did a good thing working with democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model and as a consequence, people are

covered there it hasn't destroyed jobs, and as a consequence we have a system in which we have the opportunity start bringing down cost as opposed to leaving people out -- >> moderator: your five seconds went away a long time ago. tell the president why directly why what he said is wrong. romney: i will lab elaborate. first of all, i like the way we did in massachusetts. i like the fact in my state we had republicans and democrats come together and work together. what you did instead is push through a plan without a single republican vote. when massachusetts did extraordinary elected a republican senator to stop obamacare you pushed it there through anyway. instead of bringing america together and having a discussion you pushed through something that you and nancy pelosi and

harry reid thought was the best answer descroaf it through. 80% democrat, we were together. 200 legislators in my legislature only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished over differences we didn't raise taxes. you raced them by a trillion dollar under obamacare. we didn't cut medicare. we didn't have medicare. we didn't cut medicare. we didn't put in place a board that can tell people what treatments they are going receive. we didn't also do something that i think a number of people across the country recognize this which is put people in a position where they lose the insurance they had and wanted. right now the cbo said up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as obamacare goes in to affect next year. like wise the study by mckinsey and company of american businesses said 30% of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage. for those reasons for the tax, medicare, for this board, and for people losing their insurance, this is why the

american people don't want medicare and don't want obamacare. it's why republicans said do not do this and the republicans had the plan they put a plan out. they put a bipartisan plan that was swept aside. i think something this big, this important has to be done in a bipartisan basis. we have to have a president that can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation from input of both parties. obama: grand canyon said it has to be done by a bipartisan basis. it was a republican idea. and glob at the beginning of the debate wrote and said what we did in massachusetts could be a model for the nation. and i agree that the democratic legislators in massachusetts might have given somed advice to in republicans in congress how to corporate. butt the fact of the matter is we use the same advisers they say it's the same plan. it when governor romney talks

about the board unelected board we created. what it is is a group of health care expert, doctors, et. cetera to figure out how can we reduce the cost of care in the system over all? because there are two ways of dealing with our health care crisis, one is to simply leave a bunch of people uninsured and let them fend for themselves. to let businesses figure out how long they can continue to pay premiums until they give up and the workers are no longer getting insured. that's the trend line. we can figure out how do we make the cost of care more effective. there are ways of doing it. and cleveland clinic, one of the best health care systems in the world, they actually provide great care cheaper than average. and the reason they do is because they do some smart things that they say if a patient is coming in, let's get the doctors together at once, do one test instead of patient run

around with ten tests? let make sure that we're providing preventive care. we're catchy. the onset of something like diabetes. let's pay providers on the basis of performance as opposed on the basis of how many procedures they have engaged in. now, so what this board does is basically identify the best practices and say let's use the purchasing power of medicare and mid -- medicaid to help constitutionize all the good things we do and the fact of the matter is that when obamacare is fully implemented. we're going to be in a position to show that costs are going down and over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up. it's true. they have gone up slower than any time in the last fifty years. we are beginning to see progress. in the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate. let me make one last point.

grand canyon glob said we should replace it the fact is the matter of some of the prescriptions he offered letting you buy insurance across state lines. there's no indication that it's going to help somebody with a preexisting condition finally buy insurance. it's estimated by repealing obamacare you're looking at 50 million people losing health insurance at time when it's vitally important. >> moderator: let's let the governor explain if obamacare is repealed. romney: it's a lentd think description. they are covered under my plan. number two young people are able to stay on the family plan. that's already offered in the private marketplace. you don't have to have the

government mandate it for it to occur. let's come back to something we agree on, the key task we have in health care is to get the cost down so it's more affordable for families, and then he has his model for doing that a board of people at the government and unelected board. appointed board who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have. in my opinion, the government is not effective in bringing down the cost of almost anything. as a matter of fact, free people and free comprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective and bringing down the cost of the government will ever be. your example of the cleveland kline is my case in point along with several other i can describe. this is the private market. these are enterprises competing with each other, learning how do better jobs. i used to consult to businesses, excuse me the hospitals and health care providers. i was astonished at the creativity and innovation that exists in the american people.

in order to bring the cost of health care down, we don't need have a board of fifteen people telling us what kind of treatments we should have. we instead need to put insurance plans, providers hospital, doctors on targets they have incentive as you say, performance pay for doing an excellent job for keeping cost down and that's happening in health care does it well. mayo clinic is doing it well chief land clinic and others. but the right answer is not have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across america telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have. that's the wrong way it go. the private market and individual responsibility always work best. obama: let me just point out of, first of all, the board we're talking about can't make decisions about what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what

governor romney indicated under his plan he will be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. actually, governor, that isn't what you're plan does. what it does is to duplicate what is already the law which says if you on a health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage, and insurance company can't deny you if it's been under ninety days. that's already the law. and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government-take over in health care. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that insurance you have to take everybody. now, that also means you have more customers. but when governor says he'll

replace it with something but can detail how it will be in fact replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts because the reason there isn't a better way of dealing with preexisting condition problem. it reminds me of he said he's going to close dededuction and loopholes if are the tax plan. that's how it's going to be paid for. we don't know the details. he said that he's going replace dodd-frank, wall street reform, but we don't know exactly which one. he won't tell us. he now said he's going to brashing and ensure the good things in it are going to be in there, and you don't have to worry. and at some point, i think the american people have to ask themselves is the reason that governor romney is keeping these plans to prase secret because they're too good? is it because that somehow middle class families benefit too much from them? no. the reason is because when we

reform wall street, when we tackle the problem with preexisting conditions, then, you know, these are tough problems and we have to make choices and the choices we have made have been ones that are benefiting middle class families across the country. >> moderator: we've going move to a -- >> reporter: i have to respond my experience as a governor is if i come in and lay down a piece of legislation and say it's my way or the highway, i don't get a lot done. what i do is the same way that ronald reagan worked together with tip 0 new york kneel he laid out the principles he was going foster. he said he was going lower tax rates and broaden the base. you're going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base. those are my principles. i want to bring down the tax burden on middle income family and i'm going work with congress to say what are the various way west with can bring down deduction. is to have a single number make

up a number. 50,000 anybody could have dpe deduction up to that amount. and it disappeared for high income people. one could follow bowls simpson and take dededuction by dededuction. there are alternatives to accomplish the objective i have which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code, and create incentive for growth with regard to health care, you have remarkable details with regard to my preexisting condition plan. you obviously studied up on my plan. in fact i have a plan that dealing with people with preexisting condition. that's part of the health care plan. what we did in mts massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state. the federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and qhisking aside the tenth amendment which gives the states right for those kinds of things is not the course for to have a stronger more vibrant economy. >> moderator: that is terrific

segue to the next segment. it's the role of government. and let's see, role of government, and it is you are first on this, mr. president, and the question is this, do you believe both of you, that you had the first minutes on this, mr. president, do you believe there's a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the nation of the federal government? obama: well, definitely think there are differences. >> moderator: yeah. obama: the first role of the sphrowft to keep the american people safe. it's most basic function, and as commander in chief, that is something that i have worked on and thought about every single day i have been in the oval office. but i also believe that government has the capacity, the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create lotters of opportunity and great

framework where the american people can succeed. the jen yous of america is the free enterprise system and the freedom and the fact that people can go out and start a business, work on an idea, make their own decisions, but as abraham lincoln understood there are things we do better. in the middle of the civil war app ham lincoln said elevens help to finance the railroad. let's start the national academy of sciences, let's start land-grant colleges because we want to give these gateway of opportunity for all americans because if all americans are getting opportunity, we're all going better off. that doesn't restrict peoples' freedom. it enhances it. what i've tried to do as president is to apply those same principles. when it comes to education, what i have said is we have to reform schools that are not working, we

use asking called race to the top. it wasn't a top-down approach, govern. what we said to states we'll give you more money if you initiate reforms. as a consequence you had 46 states around the country that made a real difference. what i've said is let's hire another 100,000 matt and science teachers to make sure we maintain the technology lead and people are skilled and able to succeed. and hard-pressed states can't all do that. in fact, we have seen layoffs of hundreds of thousand of teachers over the last several years, and governor romney doesn't think we need more teachers. i do, i think that is the kind of investment graduate federal government can help. it can't do it all. it can make a difference. as a consequence we'll have a better trained work force and it will create jobs because companies want to locate in places where we have a skilled work force. >> moderator: two minutes. romney: i love schools.

the key to great schools is great teachers. so i reject the idea they don't believe in great teachers or more teachers. every school district and state should make their decision on their own. the rule of government, look behind us. the constitution and the decoration of independents, the role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. . first, life and liberty. we have responsibility to protect the lives and liberty of our people that means military second to none. i do not believe in cutting our military. i believe in maintaining the strength of america's military. second, in that line that says we're endow by the creator with our rights, i believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance an freedom in the country. that statement also says we are endowed by the creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. i interpret that as one, making sure the people who are less fortunate and can't care for

themselves are cared by one another. where nations believes we are children of the same god, and we care for the those that have difficulties, those are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled. we care for them and look for discovery and innovation all things desired out of the american heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens. we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams. and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. and what we're seeing right now is in my view, a trickle down-government approach which has government thinking you can codo a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. it's not working. and the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. the proof of that one out of six people in poverty. the proof is we have gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million. d the proof of that is 50% of college graduates this year can't find work. we know that the path we're taking is not working.

it's time for a new path. >> moderator: let's go to specifics in terms what how each of you view the role of government. how -- education does the federal government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education in america? romney: the prepare responsibility for education is at the state and local level. the federal government can play an important role. i agree with secretary an key country dan he put forward ideas. some of them i agree with. i congratulate him for it. they can get local and state schools to do a better job. i have happen to believe i want 9 kids getting federal dollarss from ikea or title one, these are disabled kids or poor kids or lower income kids, rather. i want them to be able to go to the school of their choice. all federal funds, stein stead of going to the state or school district i have follow the child and let the parent and the child decide where to send their

student. >> moderator: how do you see the federal government's responsibility as i say to improve the quality of public education in this country? obama: as i have indicated i think it has a significant role to play. to our race to the top program we have worked with republican and democratic governors to initiate major reform and they're having ab impact right now. >> moderator: do you think you have a difference with those views and those on governor romney about education? obama: this is where budgets matter they reflect choices. when governor romney indicates he wants to cut taxes, and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for we're having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education, that makes a difference. his running mate, congressman ryan put forward a budget that reflects many of the principles

governor romney talked about. it wasn't very detailed. it seems to be a trend. what it did do is to if you extrapolated how much money we're talking about you look at cutting the education budget by up to 20%. when it comes to community colleges, we are seeing great work done out there all over the country because we have the opportunity to train people for jobs that exist right now. one of the things i suspect governor romney and i probably agree is is getting businesses to work with community colleges so they're setting up training programs. -- >> moderator: do you agree, governor. obama: let me finish. romney: yeah. obama: their partnering so that they're designing training programs and people who are going through them know there's a job waiting for them if they deplete it. >> moderator: okay. obama: that makes a big difference it requires federal support. let he say one final example. when it comes to making college affordable, whether it's

two-year or two-year. one of the thing i did as president we were sending $60 billion to banks and lenders as middle men for the student loan program. the loans were guaranteed. there was no risk for banks. they were taking billions out of the system. we said why not cut out the middle man and as a consequence with what we have been able to do is provide millions more students assistance, lower or make -- keep low interest rates on student loans, and in is an example where our priorities make a difference. governor romney, i genuinely believe cares about education. when he tells a student that, you know, you should borrow money from your parents to go to college, you know, that indicates that the degree to which, you know, there may not be as much of a focus on the fact that like myself and michelle kids who probably attend university of denver

don't have the option. and for us to be able to make sure they have that opportunity and they can walk through that door, that is vitally important. not just to the kids. it's how we're going grow the economy over the long-term. >> moderator: we're running out of time. romney: jim. i need a chance to respond that. you're not your own facts. all right i'm not going to cut education funding. i strong any plan to cut education funding with and grants that be to people going college. i'm planning on continuing to grow. i'm not planning on making change changes there. you make a good point which is the place you put your money just makes a clear indication where your heard is. you put $90 billion in to green jobs and i -- look i'm in favor of green energy. $90 billion that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion and these businesses many of them gone out of business. i think half of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business.

a number of them happen to be contributors to the campaign. the right course for america's government, we're talking about the role of government is not to become the economic player picking winners and losers. telling people what kind of health treatment they can receive. taking over the health care system existed in the country for a long, long time and produced the best health records in the world. the right answer for government is to say how do we make the private sector become more efficient and effective. how do we get schools to become more competitive. i propose we grade them. so parents know which are succeeding and failing. sop they can take their children to a school being more successful. i don't want to cut our commitment to education. i want to make it more e event efficient. i've had that experience. i don't just talk about it it. i've been there massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation. this is not because i didn't have commitment to education. it's because i care about education. for all of our kids.

>> moderator: gentleman. -- excuse me, one second. we have three minutes left. i'm not going to grade the two of you and say your answers have been too long or i've done a poor job. obama: you've done a great job. >> moderator: the fact is the role of government and governing, we have lost a pot, in other words, we only have three minutes left in the debate before we go to your closing statements. and so i want to ask, -- finally here, we have three minutes total time here. and the question is this, many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of or really a sis as a result of partisan grid locke. if elected in your case, if re-elected in your case, what would you do about that? >> governor. romney: i had the great experience. it didn't seem like it at the time of being elected in the state where my legislator was

87% democrat i had to get along and work across the aisle to get anything done. we drove our schools to be number one in the nation. we cut taxes 19 times. >> moderator: what 0 will you do as president. romney: i will sit down on the day after i get elected the democratic leader as well as republican we met every monday for couple of hours a taunted the issue and challenges in our state in the case. we have to work on a collaborative basis. not because we're going comprise the principle. but because there's common ground and the challenges america faces right now, look, the, i'm in the race is there are people really hurting today in the country. and we face this deficit could crush the future generation. what's happening in the middle east? there are developments around the world that are real concern. and republicans and democrats both love america. but we need have leadership, leadership in washington. that will bring people together and get the job done and could

not careless if it's a republican or democrat. i've done it before. i'll do it again. obama: i think he's going it have a busy first day. he's going to repeal obamacare which will not be popular democrats as '02 silting down with them. my philosophy has been i will take ideas from anybody democrat or republican as long as they're advancing the cause of making middle class stronger and giving opportunities to middle class. that's how we cut taxes for middle class families and small business. that's how we cut trillion dollars of spending that wasn't advancing cost. that's how we signed free today deals in to law that are helping us double our exports and sell more american exports. that's how we repealed don't ask don't tell. and that's how we went wound down the wars and went after al

qaeda bin laden. we have seen progress under republican control of the house of representatives. but ultimately part of being principled part of being a leader is a being able to describe what it is you intend to do. not just saying i'll sit down. but so you to have a plan. number two, what's important is the occasionally so you to say no to folks both in your own party and in the other party. and, you know, yes, with had we fight between me and the republican when they fought back against us reigning in the excess of wall street? absolutely. that was a fight that needed to be had. when we were fighting about whether or not we were going to make sure that americans had more security with their health insurance, and they said no, yes, that was a fight we needed to have. and part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is you are for, but also being willing to say no to some things and i have to tell you governor romney when it comes to his own party during the course of the campaign has not displayed that

willingness to say no. to some of the more extreme parts of the party. >> moderator: it brings us closing statements. there's a coin toss, governor romney you won thes to, and you elected to go last. so you have a closing two minutes. mr. president? obama: i want to thank you and governor romney. i think it was a terrific debate. i appreciate it. i want to thank the university of denver. you know, four years ago we were going through a major crisis, and yet -- and the reason is because the people. because the woman i met in north carolina who decided to 55 to go back to school because she wanted to inspire her daughter and now has a job from the new training she has gotten. because a company in minnesota who was willing to give up salary and perks for the executives to make sure they

didn't layoff workers during a recession. the autoworkers you meet in detroit take such pride in building the best cars in the world not just because of paycheck but because it gives them that sense of pride they're helping to build america. and so the question now is how do we build on the strengths? and everything that i've tried to do and everything i'm now proposing for the next four years in terms of improving our education system or developing american energy or making sure that we're closing loop loopholes for company and focusing on small business companies creating jobs here in it yew or closing our deficit in a responsible balanced way that allows us invest in the future. all those things are designed to make sure that the american people, their grit, their determination is channeled and they have an opportunity to succeeded. and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is getting a fair share. serve doing a fair share and

playing by the same rules. you know, four years ago i said i'm not a perfect man. i wouldn't be a perfect president. it's probably a proms governor romney thinks i kept. i also promise i would fight every single day on behalf of the american people and the middle class i kept that promise and if you'll vote for me, then i promise i'll fight just as hard in the second term. >> moderator: governor romney your two minutes. glrp thank you, jim and plt and tuning in this evening. it is an important election. i'm concerned about america. i'm concerned about the destruction america has been taking over the last four years. i know this is bigger than election about the two of us as individuals. it's bigger than our parties. it's the election about the course much america what kind of america do you want to have yourself, and for your children? and the really two different paths we began speaking about

the evening and over the course of the two month -- we'll talk about the two paths. but they lead in very different destructions. -- directions [inaudible] three straight months with unemployment above 8%. if i'm presidentially help create 12 million new jobs in the country with rising incomes. the president's reelected obamacare will be fully installed, in my view, that's going mean a whole different way of life for people who u counted on the insurance plan they had in the past. many will lose it. you see health premiums for family. if i'm elected we won't have obamacare. we'll put in place the kind of principles i put in place in my own state and allow each to craft their own programs ever --

of health care down. if the president were to be reelectedded you're going see a $716 billion cut to medicare. you'll have 4 million people who lose medicare advantage. you'll have hospital and providers who no longer accept the medicare patients. i'll restore it. and finally, military, the president's elected you'll see cuts to the military. the secretary 6 defense said these would be devastated. ly not cut our commitment to the military. ly keep america strong and get america's middle class working again. thank you, jim. >> moderator: thank you govern, thank you, mr. president. the next debate will be the vice presidential at centere college in dan ville kentucky. i'm jim, thank you and good night. [applause] [applause] [cheering and applause]

[cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] chars [cheering and applause] [inaudible conversations] we'll continue with the politico

editors. ♪ ♪ ♪ welcome to "politico" live i'm jim executive editor of "politico." we want to welcome the viewers on "politico".com on news channel 8 and washington, d.c. globally i'm here with mike allen and ginger. we have on the trail with mitt romney this was an amazing night. i have to think back to first the bush debate think of a debate where there's a disparity of performance. thing is the best we have seen mitt romney all campaign. in many ways it's the romney that republicans have been pining for for weeks and you have barack obama certainly not at his best. if you view that in to toll talty the disparity between the two is big. you see on twitter, from reporters, seeing it on e-mail. people saying it was a pretty darn good night for mitt romney. >> it was a collective and calmer smooter romneyen than we

see on the trail. i have been traveling with the campaign when he gets interacts with reporters. he's more rigid and today was the mitt romney that is friends that his closest associates tell us they see. the guy who is calmer, who can make a joke in the beginning, who can deliver a line and who can talk about these issues with clarity and not someone rambling, you know, parts you see him give on the stop. >> are we wrong in assessing watching the debate that romney had a strong performance. >> it's more than that. mitt romney had the night of his life. there's a level playing field in the race. i'm getting e-mails from around the country top "politico" people saying this is a new race. democrats very quiet tonight. republicans gleeful. the best e-mail i got somebody said the president almost looked annoyed that he had been president for the last four years. not only did mitt romney win with the people who were listening, with the clear,

crisp, presentation of the d.a. tap tay. even if you had the sound down, you would be able to tell the winner of the debate. mitt romney always looking at president and we're told that he had been coached in the debating address the president, walk specifically through your plans, point one point two, point three. he stuck to that. mitt romney -- president obama looked down most of the time. even when mitt romney made a joke in the expense. he still kept looking down. it begs a question when was mitt romney the last lump or at least this mitt romney the exraint we're bringing john editor in chief in to the conversation that complaint about mitt romney was that he could not stay on message. that he could not talk about the middle class. he could not talk about jobs, that he could not come off as likable. on every one of those tonight, check, check, check, check. why tonight? >> and begin we shall obviously much more time than we have.

it seems to me that he in order to get a performance like this, he has to get himself in a sigh displace in intellectual place. he has to organize his mind and spirit, if you will. and is a say what do i need do. mitt romney has been a hapless candidate as you wrote, the other day has been somebody who in every venue of his life, every chapter of his life almost without exception only a couple of has been successful. he's used to be being a winner. and i think somebody who has that kind of habit on a big occasion can rise to that big occasion. he did it tonight. my only caution i would say is i think we were struck stylistically with a champ performance by romney and someone drowsy one by president obama. it was a time and time again where reporters impressionistic take away from a speech or debate are not necessarily the same ones that the voters have. we where are have got to see data before i'm prepared to say the race changed or it's even or anything other than the

stylistic appraisals. we can count barack obama's sentence fragments and um and ah. that's a factual thing. how people we need d.a. tap. >> i have a lot of e-mail about the speaking or halting at different times from the president. that it didn't project the confidence or used to seeing from him. and i guess that's what i'm most surprised by. i thought we would see two fabulous performance by two people of massive achievement in politickings who have done really well in the forum in the past. i guess what struck me is mitt romney did well as we talk abouted it was the president performance that surprised me just as much. it wasn't -- there was so much he could have ended. there weren't the hits on pay. he did go after him for also have policy when he favored the wealthy. he backed off when he tried. he has the thing in his speaking style and i think it comes from his background where he wants to basically acknowledge the other

side of the argument and by doing so it tends to weaken his argument. >> one thing that i'm hearing with however, on the flip side it got wonky really early. a lot of detailed policy talked about dodd-frank and the policy and the concern people night have been lost. >> that's where the optics are going to come in from mitt romney. the more the president looked petulant and mitt romney was able to stay there and looking like a ceo and johnny our first piece data we know from the campaign that number one demographic group they were trying to target was suburban woman. what is the pollster doing -- mitt romney won every single question except for one on excite element. people like the specific and the personal stories. >> we're going to bring low is in to the conversation. i want to go to this clip where you are had mitt romney talked about one really clear rehearsed

line trickle down government. is the first time he used that. >> it is a work he uses. not a common phase in the speech. not something you hear him say. number five champion small business. it's small business that creates the jobs in america and over the last four years, small business people decided that america may not be the place to open a new business because new business start you ups are down to a thirty-year low. i know, what it takes to get small business growing again to hire people. i'm concern 9 path we're on has been unsuccessful. the president has a view similar to the view he had when he ran for four years ago. that a bigger government spending more taxing more, regulating more, if you will trickle down government would work. that's not the right answer for america. our restore the vitality that gets america working again. we have they call the spin room

where people give their line we're supposed to buy. give us your take on the debate. i do caution as john has we need to kind of step back and see what the voters think, you know, remember going in to this all of our expectations were so low for romney he seemed more prepared than the president oop i'm not sure where it is. he ha lot of personal stories and his closing statement was a broad side. he got the last word in fact he got a lot. i was noticing every time he wanted the last word, tim gave

it to him. every time the president wants to get a word in jim would say we're out of time. but romney's closing statement was extraordinary. he said the president is going to take away your insurance, you know, taking $7 billion out of med carrie prejean. he went through a whole list attacks. that's how the debate ended. it's going to be interesting to see how the voters view that. >> have you talked to any of the folks in the room trying to spin it from the obama perspective? are they ak nonning that wasn't his best performance are saying no he did a great job. we have e-mails during saying i can't believe we are late debating the economic policy of romney. what are you hearing from democrats? >> you know, i'm hearing from antidote tal from e-mails. i haven't talked to anybody. i came here. i think as acknowledgement he was flat tonight. he didn't he went too -- part of

the he could be romney was crisp, you know, one, two, three, four, he seemed to land every hit. we'll try to come wack to you later in the program. does it matter. we had the debates about debates. do they matter? can they move the neelgtdz. you you come in to this. we should probably set that for folks joining us on news channel 8 and c-span. coming to the race if you look at the polls, if you go to ohio and look at what's happening in wisconsin, have virginia. the numbers look good for president obama. just a body language of the romney campaign headed to the night looked bad. they express a lot of

reservation. about the poll numbers and stuft they're hearing in focus group. can tonight change that? >> it's u gent for romney which is stop the mowning, stop the internal back bite ago among republicans. stop the despair like gosh, how do we get stuck with the nominee it it ends that. i think the question we'll see is whether romney can take our view clearly a stylistly a superior performance over president obama. whether he can translate that no a broader sense of momentum. >> it's going to give himself and his campaign confident which they totally lacked. they believed the destruction of the polls, the trends of the polls were dire they saw in every single vital state. they saw a hardining support for barack obama. a softening support of romney. it will be a couple days to see if it's changing. it will change the mood within the energy inside the campaign. >> you asked me earlier

historically can we think of gaits where the contrast of clear. i have to say we are ordinarily cautious stylistically. well let the voters decide what it means. .. .. why did he seemed down and why did he let down and why did not he seemed more self-confident? why didn't he go after mitt

romney and some of the areas where they have had effective attacks on mitt romney. an interesting study on politico.com right now where we had a corporate, some of the corporate studies to measure the messages and the eight most effective messages of the campaign so far were being done by barack obama against mitt romney so it's not like he does at the material to work with but he did not use any of it. >> he says i'm being bored silly by this walking argument obama in trouble. that is from a huge supporter. >> i never heard 47%, never heard obama bring up these things and when romney attacked one thing that surprised me was he brought up this board that is in the health care law, brought it up twice and they would decide what kind of health care you can get and obama had to go with his answer before he responded to that leading letting romney when that point and that back-and-forth was not there with an answer and when he

came back was a long answer. took a long time before he finally said -- >> he tried to keep reading some of the information. obama at his does best is so eloquent but in the debates and i thought he was passive, distracted and defensive. somehow a allowed mitt romney to come across as the advocate for the little guy as well obama came across as an advocate for law professors. that is a fan it vana president. it goes to john's point that if nothing else, "the weekly standard" just put out a statement saying it was the best performance in 20 years by a republican. is that true or not doesn't matter. at the forefront of criticizing the president in "the weekly standard," "the wall street journal." it's been the intellectual conservative base going after him. if they are placated it's going to get them enthusiastic again. the donors might start donated and we talk about outside groups not getting as much money as they initially anticipated. that money could start pouring in so i think john is right.

>> conversations tomorrow about where the outside money, the billion-dollar by coming from outside republican groups is going to go and they were prepared to start moving it to governor and house races that they needed to. that's not going to happen now. >> mike you know these guys so well. anticipate the obama pushed back to the commentary that is clearly taking in one direction. >> they are going to say the american people are listening to substance and our ideas are more popular and the people are like what the person is going to say even if you don't like how he was saying it. here's the flaw in that argument. the only way they win that argument is that they go to check.org. people would say no no that's not true and what you said about medicare is not true. if they think about the specific arguments made on stage tonight it seemed like mitt romney made the more eloquent argument on medicare. if you are tuning in and don't go to factcheck.org all the time

you'd say he was more eloquent on that in taxes and defending his tax policies. a draw in a broader the broader debate about entitlement so trying to get somebody lined up from the obama camp to come out so we can hear. we will directly put those questions to him. >> mitt romney was confident enough and -- that he was even a little sassy. he drew in that deck of vice president biden with a gaffe about the middle class being crushed. mitt romney through that word back at president obama who of course was irritated. now he just sort of rabid in and he had a great, possibly even had lived where you said the president, i've been in business 25 years and i have never heard that one. >> i've got to go but one point i would make, the pressure is really on to people which is biden and ryan because they are the next debate before received these again and particularly paul ryan. there is going to be great

pressure to make him do as well as the nominee. >> now people are thinking whoa these people could get the job. ryan has's select -- >> joining us is rachel. harrison is taking off. >> was a something i said? >> no, no he is not offended at all. you spend a lot of time thinking about press and obama both in the presidential context and certainly as a candidate. i would say the precedence defense, it would be like me debating you and you spending three months every night studying for it and winging it. you would crush me. you would crush me her pair but certainly crush me in that circumstance. mitt romney we know has spent hours and hours and hours preparing for this and getting his briefings late at night and getting his breathing books at home and calling advisers on each and every one of the issues. you could see tonight. every single question he was ready for andy had a canned response that was two minutes. it was positive. it was efficient.

>> three points and the president was a little stale. he had not done this for a while. he has been a present for four years so he is well for some of the policies. that is a different exercise so he seemed at times professorial. he seemed frustrated and you could almost hear his advisers saying, john shelk contempt because there was anger. he almost seemed to twitch a little in his face like he was showing hard to not show contempt but still came off as frustrated. the question is romney came out strong but is it strong enough to be the game-changer that we heard had to happen permit romney? >> right now we probably have 30 or 40 reporters sitting in there and many of them covering different aspects of this campaign. usually after moment like this, we have a big division this morning about whether or not this videotape that appeared overnight. >> the video that we heard nothing about. >> that was a newsworthy issue,

vigorous debate with passionate views on both sides in a divided newsroom. anybody in our newsroom arguing know you got it wrong, obama won? >> i did hear that argument and we are talking about instant analysis and we have seen times in the past where the instant analysis is just wrong. we'll think it's one way but the voters decided after the polls began to comment here says history about winning the debate so will be interesting to see what the first poll show for tonight we are hearing a pretty consistent view within our newsroom and that's what the twitterverse such such visit is that this was a good night for mitt romney. >> what will the stories they tomorrow? >> his view is the same that we are talking about. the president is rusty. he has not done this for a long time and he was shaking off the rest. >> you are wired into the romney campaign as any reporter in the country. we have done a lot of reporting about infighting inside of the campaign and confusion about the strategy. they still have a lot of money.

we still have a lot of time. people are just tuning into the race. what is the strategy? how did they take this performance which is getting good reviews and how do they build momentum? how do they build the successes of this into an ad structure that can amplify at? >> they have party seen the polls tightening and there will be a string of additional polls in the next few days. they say that will give them some outside and give them some room to make their case. they have two more debates and they will get they think another 50 million people and i think we are going to see -- we have written about the strategy. we saw this tonight. they could have losses mitt romney would say a 10,000-dollar bet. mitt romney put be more readable of the two people and it was mitt romney who are the box was talking about a lady whose

husband had had four jobs in three years and was losing their house. >> ordinary people, regular americans. it will be very interesting because the next presidential debate is the town hall debate. before tonight i would have said that as a strike or obama over romney but when you see that tonight that romney has really worked on his relating to people and using examples of stories of ordinary americans like we heard. >> we are glad that viewers on c-span2 and channel -- political.com, follow us at political hashtag life. if you have a treat we will try to respond to it on a program. we did an interesting piece not long ago talking to republicans in the campaign. people who worked for mitt romney who told us that disappointed they were in him as a candidate. they said behind the scenes he is really good and really smart and optimistic. he is spot on in his policies but they told us he's a terrible candidate and we don't know why. he is not good at improvising and he is not good on the stage.

he is not good connecting in interviews but it was like tonight the romney that they were describing that nobody outside of that small bubble of eight evil apparently have seen in the last three weeks. suddenly everybody saw that and i guess i just love to know, to get inside of their camp overnight. how did they finally get him to be what they wanted to be? >> was a sense of humor talking about may run a sense of humor. we haven't seen that on the campaign trail but we have saw flashes of tonight. there was a warm moment at the beginning of the debate when the president gave a shout-out to his wife and called her sweetie and it was their anniversary. mitt romney came back in sunoco is this as romantic as it could be for you you are an stage in an stage in stages may. >> there was a lot of talk about the big fight over the deck on the deficit and we will have a fiscal cliff hitting us at the end of the year. no more fascinating policies. all these tax cuts expire in the spending cuts kick in. we are going to go to clip and a

second where they talk about the simpson-bowles plan which is the centerpiece of this fiscal debate. it is a combination of things. river forms entitlement programs particularly medicare. it cut spending and raises some taxes. let's take a look at how they handle the portion of that debate tonight. >> of in or what about simpson-bowles? you support simpson-bowles? >> the president should have grabbed that. i have my own plan. it's not the same is simpson-bowles but in my view the president should have grabbed it. if. if you want amiga just missed to a take it, go to congress and fight for it. >> that is what we have done. putting adjustments to it and putting it before congress now. >> you have been president for four years. you said you would cut the deficit in half in it for your site are we still have chilean dollar deficits in the cbo says we will have trillion dollar deficits each of the four years in if you're reelected we'll get to the trillion dollar debt that big bore you said we would cut the deficit in half. you found for chilean dollars

and ways to reduce or get closer to a balanced budget except we still showed trillion dollar deficits every year. that doesn't get the job done. but. >> we talked before in the debate there are two tasks that you prosecute the case that the last four years were a failure and he had to make a very positive case or how he would be different and how mitt romney would be different. we sought time and time again where he had a formula. each question gets aed in the process is the case for the previous four years were bad and the president and live up to expectations and then he would walk through with more specificity than we are used to. not that much. >> but by degree. that's right. be given we are covering a campaign where neither candidate talks about how he will govern we will take what we can get. >> and we saw from his press he addressed the president directly and we remember from the republican, one of mitt romney's

tense whether you look at the personal the time that they were speaking. he did that again here and in the split screen, a million people saw their broadcast. it was really obvious that he was in the game and the president trying to appear distance and even retreating. polls from cnbc who do you think won tonight's presidential debate? romney 51%, obama 38%. tell us how an organization like this covers the debate? how many people do we have there? >> 20 would you say? it couldn't be 20. 10 may be. we have reporters and video folks out there. we have one editor, our politics editor of tonight. we have a good core group of people but we have tons and tons of people back here as well. see how many political's does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

>> just reading an e-mail that i got from a democrat who is how prepared democrats for debates over the years. obama was on energetic and almost wimpy. he did not engage and cut cleanly beat. missed countless opportunities to question romney's facts and that is someone used to preparing democrats for debate. >> you were asking about the behind-the-scenes conversation and that number number of us were struck that the president didn't use of any of the standard standards of two lines. we talking before the debate, how many times do you think he will hit that 47% line? >> only ones i think. >> did you hear it even once? when was that? i can hear it at all. >> those attack lines. i would be much more effective than the romney ad to date and i think they have been very focused. something they didn't do tonight is that really surprise me